EclecticLip

(originally written Jan 17; posted Jan 23 as part of some backfill) 

Now that the Globe and Mail’s GlobeInvestor site has mutual fund performance data for calendar 2010, I decided to check in on ubiquitous business-channel commentator and investment guru Dennis Gartman’s performance this year.  As you may recall, his ETF (exchange traded fund — basically, a mutual fund that trades as a stock) did rather poorly last year.  Outperformed by 98.3% of mutual funds (!) in calendar 2009, I calculated his SAT-equivalent score to be 288.

This is based on the assumption that SAT scores follow a normal distribution, and are scored such that the median (50th percentile) scores 500, with each standard deviation representing 100 points.  As such, scoring in this system would look like:

• 99.8th percentile: 800    (top 0.2%)
• 98th percentile:    700    (top 2%)
• 84th percentile:    600    (top 16%)
• 50th percentile:    500
• 16th percentile:    400    (bottom 16%)
•   2nd percentile:   300    (bottom 2%)
•   0th percentile:    200    (bottom 0.2%)

The good news is that Dennis did much better than last year; indeed, his shareholders actually made money! 

The bad news is that his 3.8% return for shareholders put him in the 18th percentile.  That is, 82% of mutual funds beat him.  (9452 of the 11577 GlobeInvestor tracked.) 

As such, his SAT-equivalent score for 2010 is…  410.
 

At this time I should note that investments are a poor reflection of a person’s financial prowess — last I checked, Mr. Gartman convinces people to pay $400/month for his advice, despite his track record!  Clearly, he’s got amazing skills.  Or at least, chutzpah.  …can you imagine how much he’d charge if he actually outperformed the market? 

Further context:

- half of all mutual funds tracked by GlobeInvestor gained 8% or more in 2010 (SAT-equivalent of 500).

- the Toronto Stock Exchange Index gained 14.2%, which would’ve placed it among the top 16% of mutual funds (1810 / 11577).  This is consistent with the rule-of-thumb that only 20% of mutual funds beat the index in any given year.

- because his ETF started at $10 in 2009 and stood at about $9.33 at end-2010, Gartman’s investors lost about 7% in a two-year period during which the TSX index rose 46% (from 9234 to 13530; and that doesn’t include dividends).  So over the past two years, the Gartman portfolio has underperformed the index by 50%!  Though a pecuniary pundit of Mr. Gartman’s self-assurance would surely dismiss that as a temporary underperformance of “only” 50%. 

A long-time proponent of the “A3″ reporting format (which aims to summarize a problem and its solution in a roughly 11″ x17″ sheet of paper) it was a delight to cover Understanding A3 Thinking in the book club. 

Having authored some epic reports and PowerPoint slide decks in my time, the prospect of condensing findings into a single – albeit large – sheet of paper, immediately piqued my interest.  It also brought to mind the quotation by Antoine de Saint-Exupery:

Perfection is achieved, not when there is noting more to add, but when there is nothing more to take away.
 

Consider that it’s standard form to report out insights in essay format, with complete sentences; this is as inefficient as incandescent lighting.  In Edison’s invention, only a few percent of the energy output is light (the rest is waste heat).  In a technical report I’d be surprised if more than 20% of the words relate to the discoveries; I’d bet most of the words are “filler” required to make the communication of information, conform to grammatical rules. 

While Understanding A3 Thinking did cover the guidelines Toyota uses for A3 reports (e.g. emphasizing visual methods, instead of verbal methods, for explanation) it suggested the overarching value was to ingrain rigorous problem-solving discipline in the employees.  Over the course of the problem-solving, engineers submit A3’s to their supervisors and other senior staff, who provide guidance and suggestions, both on problem-solving approach and data presentation. 

As such, by the time an A3 report is finished, it will have gone through extensive “peer review” (or “superiors’ review”) which helps improve the quality of the findings, the presentation, and the problem-solving skills of the author — who may in turn pass these best practises to future junior employees.
As always, if you enjoy the book summary, please consider supporting the authors by purchasing a copy. 

- - - - - -

Understanding A3 Thinking - summary

Hmm… life’s busy-ness sure didn’t return to normal, there…

Anyways, here’s the 27th book we covered in the work business book club: Financial Intelligence.  It was chosen because of the feeling that a little financial literacy could probably go a long way for engineers and other technical types.  The fact that the question “what’s EBITDA?” recurs in all of our business-update meetings also played a role. 

One of the books requiring a longer summary (which clocks in at 12 pages!) the biggest takeaway for the reviewer was that accounting is an exact science… based on rough assumptions.  I didn’t appreciate the challenges involved in trying to represent a company’s financial situation, when any number of line items may need:

• to be amortized / depreciated (e.g. capital costs for equipment, where you might need to estimate how long equipment will last before obsolescence)
• to be matched with corresponding revenues or expenses  (e.g. travelling and other costs for salespeople should be reported only when a sale is actually made, or the customer definitely spurns you)

As always, if you find the summary useful, please consider supporting the authors by purchasing the book. 

- - - - - -

Financial Intelligence - summary